The ways and means of moving towards new knowledge in twentieth-century astronomy sharply contradicted the previously prevailing views that theory arises "directly from facts" as a result of a simple and direct transformation of empirical data. Although many outstanding discoveries in modern astronomy were made "by chance" and came as a complete surprise to most scientists, it is now becoming increasingly important to purposefully accumulate facts to confirm or refute various ideas, hypotheses, and theories. This gives astronomical observations the features of a question we ask of nature.
In most cases, new theoretical concepts about the universe were "prompted" by empirical data. But they still did not arise "directly" from the facts and only from them, but in the course of developing, verifying, and clarifying various hypotheses explaining new facts. It often turned out that the same facts can be understood (explained) from the point of view of completely different, including mutually exclusive theories. For example, the parallelism in the distribution of groups of young stars and diffuse nebulae can be understood both on the basis of the hypothesis of the origin of stars from nebulae and on the basis of the hypothesis of the joint origin of stars and nebulae from massive and dense protostars.
In some cases, fundamentally new theoretical concepts were created based on a very limited number of facts, based mainly on some theoretical assumptions. This was the case, for example, in relativistic cosmology. A. A. Friedman's theory of the expanding Universe was based on essentially the same factual data used by classical, Newtonian cosmology; however, they received a radically different physico-theoretical interpretation. In modern astronomy, the construction of mathematical models of various objects, which are only then compared with observational data, has become quite commonplace.
All this led to the question of ways to build astrophysical, cosmogonic, and cosmological theories, and the relationship between empirical (observational) and theoretical ("a priori", "biased") assumptions in their development.
A solution to this question, strongly influenced by subjective idealism, was proposed by Eddington and Milne. Eddington believed that the fundamental laws of physics, as well as physical constants, can be established from theoretical and cognitive considerations, completely independent of experience, i.e. they are a priori. According to Eddington, an intelligence unfamiliar with our universe but familiar with our system of thought would be able to deductively construct a system of physical knowledge that we have gained from experience. Milne held a similar position.
These views of Eddington and Milne provoked sharp objections from representatives of a wide variety of philosophical trends. But positivists (as well as materialistic metaphysicians), quite rightly criticizing the a prioriism of Eddington and Milne and emphasizing the role of experience in exploring the universe, denied or underestimated the importance of the original system of knowledge in the construction of new theories. They came into conflict with the fact that theoretical knowledge is not reduced to empirical knowledge and is not deduced from it by logical induction.
The only correct solution to the problem was provided by materialistic dialectics, according to which knowledge of the physical world, including the Universe, is unthinkable, on the one hand, outside the existing system of knowledge (which acts for the researcher as relatively "a priori"), and, on the other hand, without reference to experimental data. It necessarily includes both deductive and inductive research methods. Playing slots for real money requires a responsible approach and an understanding of the game mechanics. Those searching for best online slot games to win real money can compare RTP, volatility, bonus features, and available betting ranges before making a choice.
